The significant issues raised by this case include (1) the ability of courts with criminal jurisdiction to provide remedies for constitutional errors at trial; (2) the role played by Article III courts in providing collateral relief for convictions obtained in state courts, and in Article III and non-Article III federal courts; (3) the specific interaction between Article I military courts and Article III courts; and (4) the applicability of the canon of statutory interpretation disfavoring repeals of jurisdiction by implication.
Amici curiae, professors teaching the law of federal jurisdiction, criminal procedure, and post-conviction remedies, join together to provide the Court with their understanding of the application of different strands of the relevant jurisprudence to the lawfulness of the potential relief—the writ of coram nobis—that the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) has ordered to be considered for Respondent. The Government argues that because Article III courts have authority under certain circumstances to hear ineffective assistance of counsel claims such as those presented by the Respondent, the military courts of appeals do not. Amici share the view that the probable existence of a postconviction remedy in Article III courts does not divest the military courts of their authority to resolve post-conviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that would—if left unredressed—result in the Respondent’s deportation.
Vladeck, Stephen I. and Judith Resnik, Brief of Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Denedo v. United States, No. 08-267 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Feb. 17, 2009).